close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20101010102745/http://www.rawstory.com:80/rs/2010/10/bank-foreclosure-cover-bill-obamas-desk/
RAW STORY IS:
CARBON BALANCED; ALL CARBON EMISSIONS ARE OFFSET!

Bank foreclosure cover seen in bill at Obama’s desk

By Reuters
Thursday, October 7th, 2010 -- 5:03 am

Bank foreclosure cover seen in bill at Obamas desk

Update: Obama won't sign bank-friendly bill, but says authors had 'the best intentions'

At the White House blog, Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer explains, "Why President Obama is Not Signing H.R. 3808."

Today, the White House announced that President Obama will not sign H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010, and will return the bill to the House of Representatives. The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 was designed to remove impediments to interstate commerce. While we share this goal, we believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before this bill can be finalized.

Notarizations are important for a large range of documents, including financial documents. As the President has made clear, consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities, including signing into law the strongest consumer protections in history in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That is why we need to think through the intended and unintended consequences of this bill on consumer protections, especially in light of the recent developments with mortgage processors.

The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce. We will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward.

Story continues below...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bill that homeowners advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting President Barack Obama's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.

The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main sponsor, Republican Representative Robert Aderholt, requires courts to accept as valid document notarizations made out of state, making it harder to challenge the authenticity of foreclosure and other legal documents.

The timing raised eyebrows, coming during a rising furor over improper affidavits and other filings in foreclosure actions by large mortgage processors such as GMAC, JPMorgan and Bank of America.

Questions about improper notarizations have figured prominently in challenges to the validity of these court documents, and led to widespread halts of foreclosure proceedings.

The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.

The White House said it is reviewing the legislation.

"It is troubling to me and curious that it passed so quietly," Thomas Cox, a Maine lawyer representing homeowners contesting foreclosures, told Reuters in an interview.

A deposition made public by Cox was what first called attention to improper affidavits by GMAC. Since then, GMAC, JPMorgan and others have halted foreclosure actions in many states after acknowledging that they had filed large numbers of affidavits in which their employees falsely attested that they had personally reviewed records cited to justify the foreclosures.

Cox said the new obligation for courts to recognize notarizations of documents filed by big, out-of-state companies, would make it more difficult and costly to challenge the validity of the documents.

The law, the "Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act," requires all federal and state courts to recognize notarizations made in other states.

The law specifically includes "electronic" notarizations stamped en masse by computers. Currently, only about a dozen states allow electronic notarizations, according to the National Notary Association.

"CONSTITUENTS" PRESSED FOR PASSAGE

After languishing for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill passed the Senate with lightning speed and with hardly any public awareness of the bill's existence on September 27, the day before the Senate recessed for midterm election campaign.

The bill's approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn't acted on it.

The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.

The House had passed the bill in April. The House actually had passed identical bills twice before, but both times they died when the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to act.

Some House and Senate staffers said the Senate committee had let the bills languish because of concerns that they would interfere with individual state's rights to regulate notarizations.

Senate staffers familiar with the judiciary committee's actions said the latest one passed by the House seemed destined for the same fate. But shortly before the Senate's recess, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pressed to have the bill rushed through the special procedure, after Leahy "constituents" called him and pressed for passage.

The staffers said they didn't know who these constituents were or if anyone representing the mortgage industry or other interests had pressed for the bill to go through.

These staffers said that, in an unusual display of bipartisanship, Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee's senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill.

Neither Leahy's nor Session's offices responded to requests for comment Wednesday.

In background interviews, several Senate staffers denied that it would have any adverse effect on the legal rights of homeowners contesting foreclosures, and said the law was intended only to remove an impediment to interstate commerce.

"SUSPICIOUS" TIMING

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told Reuters in an interview that the law would weaken protection of homeowners by requiring many states to accept lower standards for notarizations.

She said it was "suspicious" that the law unexpectedly passed just as the mortgage industry is facing possible big costs from having filed false or improperly notarized documents.

Notarizations are made by notaries licensed by individual states. The purpose of notarizations is to attest to the identity of the person whose signature is on a legal document.

For affidavits -- sworn statements filed in court cases -- the person who made the affidavit also is required to swear under oath before a notary that the affidavit is true.

In recent depositions in several foreclosure cases, GMAC and other mortgage processors' employees have testified that they signed large numbers of affidavits without ever appearing before the individuals who notarized them.

The bill was first sponsored by Aderholt in 2006. He told Reuters in an interview that he proposed it because a court stenographer in his district had asked for it due to problems with getting courts in other states to accept depositions notarized in Alabama.

Aderholt said organizations of court stenographers supported the bill, but said he wasn't aware of any backing by banks or other business groups.

Aderholt said that he hadn't expected the Senate to pass the bill, and "we were surprised that it came through at the eleventh hour there."

(Reporting by Scot Paltrow; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Source: Reuters US Online Report Politics News

Powered by Mochila

View Comments to “Bank foreclosure cover seen in bill at Obama’s desk”

  1. 1Tweets that mention Bank foreclosure cover seen in bill at Obama’s desk | Raw Story -- Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by 93.7 WBLK: T-Boogie, LoveU, WorldNewsRecord, sitfu.com, Pascal Uccelli and others. Pascal Uccelli said: Bank foreclosure cover seen in bill at Obama’s desk http://bit.ly/8YrkMO │Raw Story [...]


  2. 2Anonymous

    You can bet every penny you’ve got and win that the banks who owns this country rammed it through. So Obama’s White House says they are “surprised” and need to examine this bill when it is so blatantly obvious it is written with criminal intentions. In any case this is a perfect example if not the ultimate that the government does not represent the best interest of their citizens.


  3. 3Thomas

    If Obama signs this bill, it will mean that he only cares about the next election and not about the public. He will simply be another whore for corporations who have shoved large amounts of cash up his ass just as they have done to members of congress and the senate.


  4. 4sacxtra

    Dear voters
    D vs R = Failure
    Who is behind your candidate? Foreign and Corporate interests. And you don’t even look.


  5. 5Anonymous

    FU Harry Reid, prrof that you can get anything you want thru the senate that screws over the citizens and helps out banker scum…no need to vote for these hacks!


  6. 6somebody

    Obama signs this at his own party’s peril.


  7. 7ThatBostonMan

    What @holes.


  8. 8Anonymous

    Passed by a voice vote with no record of voting kept. Wonder why. I hope Obama just lets this one sit.


  9. 9Anonymous

    Their fine should be, at a minimum, reimburse the victim for the full value of the home. If they owe, it’ll be paid off. If they owe little, they’ll get cash.
    That would convince the banks to be more careful.


  10. 10Anonymous

    this just proves that corporations run this country. “we the people” are just economic slaves and the corporations demand we give them our money.


  11. 11Anonymous

    Obama, Bushlite, get ready to move back to Chicago if you don’t start putting people ahead of corporate interest!


  12. 12Anonymous

    If he doesn’t veto this, he lost my my vote.


  13. 13Anonymous

    Fuckers, that’s all I can say


  14. 14Anonymous

    The Legislative Branch has quietly and without debate without the Public knowing about it changed the Constitution to read, “We the Corporation by the Corporation for the Corporation”. It has been confirmed that the Roberts Court will rule in favor of the Corporation should this change to the Constitution be challenged.

    The Roberts Court has stated when the word Corporation is mentioned the ruling will be in the favor of the Corporation prior to any hearings.

    Disclaimer: All that you read above, I made it up and I did it to make a point.

    Notice the following taken from the article above: “CONSTITUENTS” PRESSED FOR PASSAGE.

    Does anyone really believe that Constituents would really want a bill that works against the Constituents?


  15. 15Scott

    i feel your pain and frustration. I am too having a hard time deciding if i want a slow painful dissapointing collapse or just put the gun in my mouth(give republicans power by not voting) and get it over with…

    Yeah, I’m still voting democratic.


  16. 16Joe Somebody

    So, when Representatives stand on the floor of Congress and tell the public they need to demand banks show they have the title to their house if they expect to foreclose (because this economic collapse tied to bad gambling with mortgages is rife with no one having the legal documents to support their claims of ownership of the assets), the response is to simply make that proof “because we said so, here’s a computer generated stamp on a blank piece of paper that says so!”?

    And if they can “force a bill out of committee” without a vote, how the fuck do they pretend we can’t ignore the threat of filibuster on OTHER bills? By PROVING they can take an otherwise DEAD bill and get it PASSED (and without a documented vote??), they PROVE they LIED about things like Health Care and the Climate bills. ALL of it is a SHOW. We’re being fucked over by a rogue government not bound by any REAL rules, it seems.

    Banana Republic, indeed.


  17. 17Anonymous

    Gettysburg Address – Republican Version:Ten Years ago the Bush Admin brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Oligopoly, and dedicated to the proposition that Corporations shall reign over men.

    Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

    But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the Corporation, by the Corporation, for the Corporation, shall not perish from the earth.

    Hell No!


  18. 18Balthazars Rebellion

    The bills that are being fought over and never seem to get anywhere in Washington are those that would make things a little more difficult for banks and insurance corps and better for people. The bills that silently slide through without a fight are pro corporation and anti-people.. Do we understand now the priorities of the US government?


  19. 19ofb2632

    It is amazing… The republicans preach and preach that the federal government overstep its bounds, then they are trying to pass a new law that supersedes state law?? What ever happened to the states knowing what is best for their constituents??? The republicans only want less government when it interferes with the corporations ability to rape and pillage this once great nation.


  20. 20Peter Lotto

    Where was Republican obstruction when WE needed it? Oh, I forgot, the republicans never oppose that which makes their owners rich. But of course, we will now be subjected to McChinless and the Boner endlessly droning on about another democrat bank bailout….


  21. 21Anonymous

    I am not at all surprised by the content of this bill. I am very surprised that I was able to learn about it before it was signed, as it sits on the President’s desk. The timing is not a shock either, just an outrage that’s all… but what is a blessing is just the fact that I was able to learn about this situation before it was too late.Like, Officially too late. I will now utilize my right [which does not amount to much] to hound this President and this Congress into fixing or scrapping this bill.


  22. 22JustMichael

    Instead of taking time to comment here, might I suggest a comment to:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

    There are two types of Republicans:

    1. The Liars
    2. The Gullible

    Right now, there are seemingly 2 types of Democrats:

    1. Spineless Politicians
    2. Disgusted Supporters


  23. 23Anonymous

    Question will Obama sign the Bill that gaves away homes to Banks who committed crimes and illegally signed the names of owners? Obama has funding to help falling homeowners and he gave the Bank CEO a second chance to help but they didn’t. If Obama signs the GOP bill then he’s not on the side of Justice or the American citizens. Congress can pass on law but only the sitting President can officially make it law with his signature.


  24. 24Anonymous

    I guess this will just codify in federal law that corporate ( big bank ) process trumps ( individual ) state laws . Further evidence that the corporations own Washington D.C. … so much for of the people , by the people and for the people . If corporations have the same rights as individuals , shouldn’t Delaware have a few hundred more seats in the House of Representatives ? I believe they have more corporations registered in their state than any other state . Per the Roberts’ court logic , these corporations are people to !


  25. 25Anonymous

    This move by the senate is so blatantly transparent in it’s disregard for the protection of the US citizen when it comes to corporate predators. The corporations are vultures ripping pieces of flesh from the very people whose money and hard work supports them.

    That has never been a Trickle Down economy, it’s always been a Trickle Up economy. The masses work to support the corporations and the corporations don’t work to support the masses. They could give a shit about the US populace. As a matter of fact, they revel in ripping us off by giving themselves huge bonuses while taunting us to the fact that we’re losing our homes by fraudulent means as evidenced by the recent disclosures of malfeasance by said vultures.

    Yet, the very people we elected to represent us have sold their souls to the highest corporate bidder.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the next thing the corporations and politicians told each other about us was “Let them eat cake!”, if they haven’t already.


  26. 26Anonymous

    Funny, not a peep about this on Fox “news”, online or on TV. They’re preoccupied framing the story of Democrats freezing forclosures to score votes next month.
    May Fox “news” be wiped from the face of the earth!


  27. 27Anonymous

    Perhaps a better question is: Where was Democratic (i.e. majority) obstruction when WE needed it?


  28. 28Erik Berta

    Oh, what a difference a year makes! The sentiment from everyone here is that the big bad corporations are the root of all our economic woes. Let’s be clear. Corporations will always do at a minimum, what they are allowed to do. In fact, they are legally obligated to use every tool at their disposal to increase share value. What is wrong is the system it self. Capitalism is a zero sum game. Ask yourself ‘why does a monopoly game end?’ and try to think bigger than blue and red. Infinite growth with finite resources is unsustainable and ultimately impossible. And make no mistake, there is no way out of this that does not involve revolution. Remember, everything hinges on people believing their currencies have value. Want to take the power back from those who are in control now? Create and control a new currency. What?! Erik, your insane. Yes, but I’m pretty smart too. And don’t think for a second that this idea is already being put into motion somewhere in the world right now.


  29. 29Gray

    Right. No reasonable person expect any better from the big money loving rethugs. But from the Dems? They couldn’t even find 40 Senators to filibuster that crap? What the eff???


  30. 30Anonymous

    It is funny hearing Democrats wonder where the ‘Party of No’ is at!!


  31. 31Anonymous

    Really. This is stark corruption.


  32. 32Anonymous

    I told you it would happen. They are now making the illegal legal. Wait and see as Preznit Stepnfetchit signs it.

    This really is the final

    FUCK YOU AMERICANS


  33. 33Anonymous

    They don’t try very hard to cover up their contempt for the little people any more in some cases.


  34. 34chris

    They only needed ONE to put a hold on it.


  35. 35chris

    I think if he doesn’t veto it or send it back it becomes law without his signature after 10 days (Saturday)


  36. 36Anonymous

    True generally, but I thought congress adjourned until after the election. If they did, he can do nothing and it’s a pocket veto.


  37. 37Anonymous

    This is a cover the asses of the Banksters bill. Amazing to me how it’s impossible to pass any bill through Congress that benefits Americans, but it’s easy as duck butter to pass a bill designed to help cover up Bankster’s illegally foreclosing on homes they don’t really own. We still have a chance to stop this chicanery, call the white house comment line at 202-456-1111 and tell the operator to ask Obama NOT TO SIGN THIS BILL


  38. 38LauraB49

    This is disgusting. Why isn’t this making news HEADLINES!


  39. 39Hologram5

    Already did, once I saw this story I started grass roots call campaign. This garbage has got to stop.


  40. 40Anonymous

    there is only one way to handle a predator.


  41. 41Hologram5

    This story isn’t on ANY news source, let alone Fox. It is being kept close to the sleeve for a reason. Dem controlled congress, Dem president. Not so much the “party of the people” now are they?


  42. 42Hologram5

    This story isn’t on ANY news source, let alone Fox. It is being kept close to the sleeve for a reason. Dem controlled congress, Dem president. Not so much the “party of the people” now are they?


  43. 43Anonymous

    I have it on good authority that when the Nobel Peace Prize is announced tomorrow, President Obama-stan will receive it a second time in a row, for his exemplary surges in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Everywhere-else-istan!

    My congratulations to President Obama-istan, and I am rather psychic so allow me to predict his response on being notified of his second Nobel Peace Prize:

    “Shucks, I’m just here to make things as easy as possible for the banksters, just like my republican brothers.” —- President Obama-istan


  44. 44Anonymous

    it just got vetoed.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/obama-pocket-veto-foreclosures_n_753987.html


  45. 45Anonymous

    Well done you Michael. I forget to voice my opinion to them sometimes…it slips by me like a ship on the sea. Although I suspect that I write them enough that my email addy is in some database somewhere that says “Retarded Liberal – Delete”


  46. 46RawStory

    In an effort to serve the online community best, please verify your Disqus account so that your comments will appear as soon as they are posted. Thanks.
    (copy/paste the email link directly to your browser if clicking on it does not work)
    If you prefer, you can also log in using your Facebook,Yahoo,Twitter or OpenId account.


  47. 47Thebes

    Oh he signed it and sold out the “little people” once again.

    A Nation By Of and For the Banksters with profits for a few indemnified against losses by all!


  48. 48Anonymous

    Correction….he said he wouldn’t sign it. He’d damn well better not or the blood really will start to flow in the streets.

    This is exactly why the US Congress should be declared a free-fire zone — and all those phony N.A.M. commenters and e-bots who claim to be dems and support the criminal corporations and Whore Street* are simply blowing so much smoke.


  49. 49Anonymous

    JustMichael:

    Sorry, I appreciate your sentiment but they are long past paying any attention to anyone but the banksters who own them.

    Now, this may be a rather obvious national election ploy (we always have that al Qaeda about to attack before every upcoming national election, from Bush to Obama, etc.), whereby Obama “bravely” announces he will veto it, thus making it appear that for once the dems actually did something, i.e., they announced total war on the citizenry in the US Congress, then the pseudo-dem prez saves the day.

    How about they spend a modicum of their time in the US Congress, when not involved in various junkets on the taxpayer’s dime, in actually doing something for the citizenry…..FOR A CHANGE!


  50. 50Anonymous

    First, they ALL voted for it. 60 ‘yeas’. Kept it real quiet too.
    Second, this whole left/right paradigm at this point is absolute BULLSHIT! Ever heard the phrase ‘divide and conquer’? That’s what this dem/rep BS is at this point. One person’s propaganda is another’s gospel, and while we’re all arguing ‘Democrats this and Republicans that’ the REAL powers that be are walking off with all the money and rigging their game further.
    I think everyone needs to dump the piss from their boots, and wake up from this media smokescreen. Otherwise, we’ll remain the idiot “goyim” that we currently are.


  51. 51Hologram5

    Keep it up schlub! I’m in TOTAL agreement. I’ve been trying to educate people in Seattle about the left/right paradigm for two years now but they just don’t seem to want to listen. Oh well, I’ll keep trying as I’m sure they’ll want to know come November huh? Peace!


  52. 52Anonymous

    Amazing how some BS shrinks away when you shine a big spotlight on it.

    Now put the light on secret holds and see what cockroaches scatter.


  53. 53Anonymous

    Update at top of article
    ” Obama won’t sign bank-friendly bill, but says authors had ‘the best intentions’”


  54. 54Anonymous

    “The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce.”

    Sure, the best intentions of aiding the banks and getting campaign contributions [bribes]. They certainly did not have the best intentions of the homeowners.


  55. 55Anonymous

    There’s the President I voted for…at last….!


  56. 56Anonymous

    All I can say is we’re in BIG trouble if people don’t wake up very quickly.


  57. 57Anonymous

    The politicians in the legislative branch were to scared to say no to the banks so in stealth method they dumped it on the president so they can say to the banks, “hey we passed it”.

    The President knows it’s sucidal not to veto the bill but wants the banks to know that it was in good intention as a way to not to upset the bankers.

    Read this story:

    http://wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/mort-o07.shtml


  58. 58Anonymous

    I smell something very fishy here. Perhaps he was going to sign it until the press got wind of the bill. Either way the fact that it magically zoomed through the senate makes this whole thing stink.


  59. 59Anonymous

    If they had the “best intentions” why didn’t they debate the issue like EVERY OTHER BILL…barack is lying scum and upset that he got caught almost blowing bankers


  60. 60Anonymous

    Best Intentions? From whose perspective..the banks?


  61. 61Anonymous

    ‘BEST INTENTIONS’? How dam stupid do you think we are?
    They had the best intentions of getting campaigne contributions. Others would call it receiving corruption!


  62. 62Anonymous

    The GOP quickly passed the Bill on Sept. 27th without anyone knowing. They quickly sent it to the President to sign. Now this President does read the bills unlike the last who just signed what ever was given to him. People who hate Obama just got their homes saved from foreclosure as the GOP promised the Banks this bill was be passed. As for the President’s comment ” best intentions” he was right the GOP had the intention of saving the Banks and put forth ever effect to get it done. Now some people still will vote Republican/Tea Party and if that happens with the HR 3808 passes and is signed by a Republican President then the citizens can blame Obama.


  63. 63Joe Somebody

    “The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce. ”

    bullshit. Businesses aren’t bringing cases to court about improperly sealed documents because companies aren’t trying to game the system when they are dealing with other companies. Companies are _intentionally_ rubber stamping theft of home papers improperly, and this bill would force all the States to _accept those fake papers_. There are no “good intentions” there, only an attempt to fleece the public. Again.

    Fuck you, Wall Street. You gambled. You lost. You fucked us all up in the process. You don’t get to recoup your losses garnered through poor choices simply by saying “it’s all MINE!!”. PROVE you have those titles, or fuck off! “cause I say I do” isn’t gonna cut it (and that’s what this bill would have provided, it seems).


  64. 64Aqua Regia

    This is a welcome shock.


  65. 65somebody

    Which Democrats voted for this bill? Horrible. Shows their true colors.


  66. 66Anonymous

    Evidently, President Obama-istan is channeling Adolph Hitler.

    Won’t wash, dude!


  67. 67Anonymous

    All.

    “The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.”

    Corrupt whores all.


  68. 68Anonymous

    Of course they did but the language of national politics is long-standing, stilted and disingenuously courteous: it demands you praise your opponent before, during and after you kick them in the a**…..


  69. 69Anonymous

    What the hell are you talking about?


  70. 70Anonymous

    all of them! It passed by unanimous consent


  71. 71Anonymous

    I’m amazed! Our president didn’t help out the Banksters? They need to publish who in congress voted for this bill before the elections.


  72. 72Anonymous

    Remember all the DLC dimwits who said “two years is not enough”, “it takes time for something like the public option”….but a bill which gives cover to JP Morgan’s fraudulent foreclosures passes in a week. Its nothing but class warfare, and even the Dems are playing along.


  73. 73Anonymous

    are you an old fool or simply young and stupid?


  74. 74Your NameHarry Canary

    Barack did the right thing for once. I will not beat him up when he does the right thing. His actions were correct regardless of his words.


  75. 75Anonymous

    Maybe this is the first effect of Rahm being gone…!


  76. 76Anonymous

    By dems, you mean the cowardcrats?


  77. 77Anonymous

    It passed the Senate unanimously- that’s where the power is, the Senate, keep that in mind next month when you go to vote.


  78. 78Anonymous

    It still isn’t being reported.


  79. 79Anonymous

    This kind of random dumbness is worthy of Homer Simpson.


  80. 80VoxMagi

    I am forced to cautiously approve. That actually worries me. Anytime I find a politician doing something I want to applaud…I feel the immediate urge to check carefully if there isn’t ten additional ways in which the action taken will secretly screw me.


  81. 81CaptBebops

    If he had actually vetoed it then that would have been better. What it means now is they can come back and pass a bill right after the elections that is equally bad or worse. Some think this was even planned so that he could look like he is saving the day. Our banking system is run by some of the biggest psychopaths in history. I hope the banks collapse. They SO deserve it!


  82. 82Anonymous

    Chill he already sent it back to the house


  83. 83Anonymous

    So basically this is proof in writing that every single Senator is corrupt beyond doubt. Our system is geared to succeed corrupt ambitions so where do we go from here?


  84. 84Anonymous

    Obama feigns a middle road while calling this bill “best of intentions”.
    Please, I don’t even want to know what bad intentions are.


  85. 85Anonymous

    You are right on target. Seems to me this bill will get rammed through again with a few pseudo changes then Obama is going to respond “this is more like it!” and sign it.
    It’s all pre planned and it will get signed.


  86. 86Anonymous

    Well, the Gop is calling the Democrats the ‘party of food stamps’ now, so maybe the dems should start calling the Gop the ‘party of rubber stamp’. I’m not sure at this point whether the President is using a pocket veto in this case, or an outright veto. His message seems to imply the former.


  87. 87Hologram5

    According to CNN, Obama got too many calls/emails and sent it BACK to our lame congress. Thankfully…


  88. 88Anonymous

    dylan rattigan did a segment on this government back rape fest yesterday. im starting to really respect that guy, went from working at the cnbc whorehouse to becoming a true warrior against institutionalized crime. i know, i know, cnbc is a bunch of cheerleaders for the demofucks, but rattigan is the real deal.


  89. 89Anonymous

    Even after turning over the entire accumulated and borrowed wealth of the country to the banks these sleaziest of both democratic and republican congress members are not content to slink home with the filthy cash they received for selling out the American middle class without one final kick in the balls to the American tax payers and home owners.


  90. 90Anonymous

    Maybe the Democrat Leadership will look at this bill and start to get it why their base isn’t out in force.

    We elected Democrats to work for US, the people, not THEM, big business. What happens to a Wall Street speculator is an abstraction to most Americans. What happens to my neighbor is very real and up close. If you screw my neighbor (or me) with bullshit legislation that allows the banks to take our homes, we just aren’t going to give you our vote, let alone our support.

    When the Democrats and Republicans look alike, act alike, legislate alike, then there isn’t a difference.


  91. 91Anonymous

    Typical troll.


  92. 92Bob Zentrails

    How the heck did this bill get to Obama’s desk when all the others face countless Repub secret holds?


Leave a Reply

blog comments powered by Disqus